" The V2 worked perfectly but unfortunately they landed on the wrong planet. "

By steven d keeler | Aug 27, 2014

attributed to Wernher von Braun, regarding the V2 rockets landing on London and Antwerp and his " intentions " for the technology. —  

Wernher von Braun


The eco-facists Team descent into Climate Hell



Everyone ** agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy. It could be large, it could be small. We don’t know. **

Dr. Richard Betts,  UK Met Office  -  Large-scale modelling of ecosystem-hydrology-climate interactions

You can see that policymakers are getting a thoroughly biased picture of what GCMs ( Global Climate Models ) can do and whether they are reliable or not. They are also getting a thoroughly biased picture of the cost of climate change based on the output of those GCMs. They are simply not being asked to consider the possibility that warming might be negligible or non-existent or that the models could be complete and utter junk. They are not told about the aerosol fudging or the GCMs' ongoing failures.

And this is just scratching the surface.

READ MORE


So, he ( Dr. R Betts ) was up front with his social engineering purpose. The problem is that in the US, the federal and WA state governments and the eco-facists are not upfront with what they push. They want us to do what we would not want to do if we ( the general public ) understood what was going on with regard to their agenda.

Is that why Betts makes no mention of what proportion he attributes to anthropogenic influence ?

Is the Team conveniently uninterested ?

There must be some reason Betts et all never talk about the human percentage and proportionate role in the greenhouse effect.

As for Naomi Oreskes  and her "Why we should trust scientists" it would be much better if the TED "talk" were titled " why we should be very fearful of the Team "

Could the eco loons explain why it is that, despite referring to the temperature rise matching the models so faithfully “for the last 50 years”, Oreskes uses a graph that stops in 1994, fully 20 years before the date of her lecture ( May 2014 ) ?  Could any of you greens furnish a graph comparing the IPCC models to the instrumental data from 1994 to May 2014 so we can properly verify her claim ?


And, as for the Global Climate Models ( GCMs ), step back in time :

IPCC First Assessment Report, Working Group I   1990

Working Group 1   assess available scientific information on climate  change.

Policymakers Summary

CONFIDENCE IN PREDICTIONS FROM CLIMATE MODELS  page xxviii

Although the models so far are of relatively coarse resolution, the large scale structures of the ocean and the atmosphere can be simulated with some skill However, the coupling of ocean and atmosphere models reveals a strong sensitivity to small-scale errors which leads to a drift away from the observed climate.

Ch 4  Validation of climate models

4.11 Conclusions and Recommendations  pages 126 & 127

The validation of a number of atmospheric model variables has been handicapped by limitations in the available observed and model data.  In particular, future model assessments would benefit from improved estimates of precipitation and evaporation over the oceans, and of evaporation, soil moisture and snow depth over land, and by more uniform practices in the retention of model data such as snow-cover frequency and depth, and daily nearsurface temperature extremes or means.  The generation of data suitable for validating cloud simulations deserves continuing attention, as does the assembly ol palaeoclimatic data sets appropriate for climate model validation over the Earth's recent geological history.

The latest atmospheric models, while by no means perfect, are thus sufficiently close to reality to inspire some confidence in their ability to predict the broad features of a doubled CO2 climate at equilibrium, provided the changes in sea-surface temperature and sea-ice are correct The models used in simulating the equilibrium responses to increased greenhouse gases employ simple mixed-layer ocean models, in which adjustments to the surface fluxes have usually been made to maintain realistic present day sea-surlace temperatures and sea-ice in the control.


Ch 8  Detection of the Greenhouse Effect in the Observations

8.4 When Will The Greenhouse Effect be Detected ?  page 253

The fact that we have not yet detected the enhanced greenhouse eflect leads to the question when is this likely to occur ? As noted earlier, detection is not a simple yes/no issue.   Rather it involves the gradual accumulation of evidence in support of model predictions, which in parallel with improvements in the models themselves, will increase our confidence in them and progressively narrow the uncertainties regarding such key parameters as the climate sensitivity.  Uncertainties will always remain.  Predicting when a certain confidence level might be reached is as difficult as predicting future climate change - more so, in fact, since it requires at least estimates of both the future signal and the future noise level.

Now, fast forward to 2013 :

Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Executive Summary, in part :

There has been substantial progress since the AR4 ( begets AR 3, AR 2 & AR 1 ) in the methodol­ogy to assess the reliability of a multi-model ensemble, and various approaches to improve the precision of multi-model projections are being explored. However, there is still no universal strategy for weight­ing the projections from different models based on their historical per­formance.

Chapter 9  Evaluation of Climate Models

Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years

See Page 772

The causes of both the observed GMST trend hiatus and of the model–observation GMST trend difference during 1998–2012 imply that, barring a major volcanic eruption, most 15-year GMST trends in the near-term future will be larger than during 1998–2012 ( high confidence; see 11.3.6.3. for a full assessment of near-term projections of GMST ). The reasons for this implication are fourfold: first, anthropogenic greenhouse-gas concentrations are expected to rise further in all RCP scenarios; second, anthropogenic aerosol concentration is expected to decline in all RCP scenarios, and so is the resulting cooling effect; third, the trend in solar forcing is expected to be larger over most near-term 15-year periods than over 1998–2012 (medium confidence), because 1998–2012 contained the full downward phase of the solar cycle; and fourth, it is more likely than not that internal climate variability in the near-term will enhance and not counteract the surface warming expected to arise from the increasing anthropogenic forcing.



The fact that the UN IPCC AR5 WGII and III reports utilized the WGI climate models to assess and determine future climate risks associated with global CO2 emissions is shear scientific incompetence.

The UN IPCC climate models are worthless for use in addressing any assessment of the impacts of global CO2 emissions on global temperatures. Those who ignore the demonstrated and proven flaws in these climate models and utilize them to propose governmental actions on “climate” issues are pushing nothing but politically motivated actions which completely disregard the results of valid climate science which documents the huge scientific shortcomings of these models.

 

 

Comments (0)
If you wish to comment, please login.